I'll give your ideas a try, LJ. Gotta go out for the afternoon now, though.
I'll give your ideas a try, LJ. Gotta go out for the afternoon now, though.
Well, I deleted the Aperture library, which gave me back my hard disk, but since Aperture was freezing up on open there was no way to rescue the 100 or photos that Aperture imported. So, the current score, Aperture 100+ photos gone forever; Maggie, 100+ hairs pulled out.
I hates me some Aperture. There were some good photos that were lost, too.
A wig is in shipment
It sounds you'll be needing it by the End of the Evening
In looking at my own settings, I noticed that there was an asterisk (*) next to one of the Preview size preferences. My guess is that may be the suggested optimal size for your main Viewer display set-up. If you are working on a MacBook without any external monitor, I think the 1280x1280 size would be all you needed, and that is for when you have it build a Preview just for the images you select.
On the brighter side, now that you have an idea of how you might set your Preferences, things will come in faster, and you will be able to rebuild those 100+ versions without too much effort...I hope.
Last edited by robsteve; 27th February 2008 at 17:19.
Aperture took my originals with it, too. All I have left are the JPEGs that I made with Capture One.nd you will be able to rebuild those 100+ versions without too much effort...I hope.
I noticed the asterisk, too and am re-importing my iPhoto library with previews to be made only when I select a photo to view/edit.
I really like some features about Aperture but it's in the trash now for this very reason. I imported a huge number of files hoping to use it for sorting, rating, etc. but it just wound up eating up tons of space on my boot drive. I've got space elsewhere... wonder if I could relocate the Aperture Library
You can put the Aperture Library almost anywhere. I frequently attach to the Aperture Library I have on my G5 from my MBP, and vice versa. I also placed several different Libraries onto external drives. The one drawback, and Apple "may" be working on this as some have rumored, is that you cannot just switch to each Library without first resetting it as the start-up target in Aperture Preferences and then restarting the app.
The file storage part is very manageable, I think. I keep all my original files in separate external drives. I do not import the original RAW files into Aperture, but rather I import "referenced files". And I also am not importing high resolution Preview images, as may have been Maggie's first problem with both storage and time. As mentioned in some of my other notes above, one can select the Preview image quality and size, resulting in smaller files in the Aperture Library. Whenever you are actually working on a file, in Aperture, you have to be able to access those files if you stored them someplace other than the Aperture Library. For me, the Aperture Library on my MBP hard drive is merely for being able to edit IPTC data, show clients things when I am away from the office, and as the repository for the instruction files for the edits I make. Whenever I connect to the external drives that hold the RAW image files, I can edit away and save as many versions as I want. The RAW stays where it was, and all those new Versions become instruction sets in the Aperture Libraray, along with a preview of each for viewing only. That keeps the Aperture Library from growing too large.
So, there are a large variety of ways to manage files, previews, and even Libraries. Some of that is not intuitive, but all of it is explained in the rather thorough manual. For me, the key is to NOT import the RAW files into Aperture, and to keep my Preview sizes matching the screen I view them on. I am in the process of building another Aperture Library that I will keep on Time Capsule or another external drive. I will Export the Projects from the G5 and the MBP, one at a time and while connected to the sources. I will then Import those Projects to the new Library and thus have everything in one place to be accessed from whatever machine I am running/working on. I will still keep a set of Projects (copies from the main) loaded on the MBP for whatever I need to show clients, and then discard them to keep storage smaller whenever I no longer need them. All of this can be managed with a bit of planning and also knowing what the options are. Unfortunately, Apple has not made that part of the learning curve quite as intuitive as it is powerful.
I downloaded the trial version and this post is very helpful in thinking about folder structure and where to pu things.
You are welcome, Terry. When Aperture was first released, it did not have "referenced files" capability. I was always worried about having stuff chewed up or lost, so I would import copies of the RAW files only. Once they changed things, it all started to become a lot easier. Now, I keep RAW files in my own folder structure, which allows me to get at them from Aperture, Bridge, C1, RAW Developer, or whatever app I want to use. Getting that folder structure set up independently first is important, and Jack and others have talked about their methods for doing it also. I am not sure how LR handles things lately, as I do not use it at all, figuring Bridge/ACR gets the job done for those kinds of conversions....not as "light" as LR and Aperture which only create instruction sets for the RAW files...but I usually needed to get into PS at some point anyway. So, once you have an independent folder/file structure, you can just import "referenced files" into Aperture to keep it working quickly and not letting it chew up storage space too much. I also will import references of final work-ups in PS, just so I have things on hand. I do not import the 100-400MB PSD files, but only a small preview for viewing, sorting and showing in Aperture. Same for JPEGs and TIFFs from other things. It lets me view and compare things in one place easily.
Thanks here too LJ... I've reinstalled Aperture and reduced my preview sizes. Since you seem to know your way around this program so well I've got another question. On importing from a card is there anyway to get Aperture to backup the import to a second location. Lightroom offers this and it suits my new workflow.
Not that I am aware of (or have yet found), David. That is something folks have asked about, but I have not stumbled across it yet. If you move images from you cards to a file folder outside of Aperture, as was suggested, it would be up to however you go about that process. Then you import files as "referenced files" into Aperture, not directly from your card, unless you are using the card as the main file repository.
As far as I am aware, Aperture does not have any ability to create a new file and copy files to it and its own Library when you use it to import images. Somebody else may know of some action or process to do so, but from what I have seen, using Aperture as your main import device does not provide that. I have never used Aperture to import files directly from a card. I always copy files from a card to a pre-assigned folder in my own file structure first. Once I have that, I can then import files (copies) or "referenced files" to whatever app I care to use. Hope that helps explain things based on my limited knowledge.
My workflow has been similar to yours... copy files from card to my own folder, then copy that folder to a backup location. A friend uses LR to do this automatically and it's a nice feature, certainly not critical and the workaround is no biggie but it would have been nice if Aperture did it too.
This thread has been enormously helpful in enabling me to clarify my ideas about how various software applications can be combined into an efficient workflow. I have a few questions, some of which I'll ask separately, but there is one specific issue that arises from the workflow Jack described here (in response to a question Terry asked):
In a thread on the Luminous Landscape forum, Jeff Schewe was asked "why the tiff format is thought to be better than the PSD format for working on and storing images?"
His reply is worth quoting at length:
First off, my opinion is colored by Bruce Fraser's involvement as well as Mark Hamburg and other Photoshop engineers back at the time we went from Photoshop 7 to the Creative Suite. It was at that time when the whole "Backwards Compatibility" thing first started and the simple fact is that Photoshop's PSD format is no longer really the Photoshop native format but a format co-opted by the Creative Suite.
The Suite mentality basically altered Photoshop's role at Adobe. It was also about that time-after the ship of Photoshop 7 that for the first time Acrobat & PDF actually made more money for Adobe than Photoshop-and Adobe decided to leverage the rest of the Creative Suite around the Photoshop flagship. As a result, the PSD file format was no longer Photoshop's to do with as it saw fit. Both Illustrator and InDesign had to be able to read and use PSD files and that was the end of PSD as the private domain of Photoshop.
Everything that can be saved in a PSD can also be save in a layered Tiff-6.0 file format...everything, paths, channels, layers, transparency, layer effects...there is nothing that PSD has "special" any longer and when that happened, Bruce and several engineers and I realized that the end of the Photoshop native file format had arrived.
Tiff has better compression (zipped tifs), can save everything that a PSD can save and be as large as 4 gigs in size (I think PSD is still limited to 2 gigs). Tiff is publicly documented where PSD requires a special NDA to access the internals. As a result, tiff is a more "archival" format while losing nothing by being used...
...and when once looks at all the pluses and minus, I think layered TIFF's offer the best file format for pixels today-unless you are talking raw and then it's DNG-which is essentially, a TIFF-EP file, a variant of Tiff-6.
Which was one reason that Mark Hamburg, when Lightroom was first released in beta fought really, really hard AGAINST allowing PSD files into Lightroom. He lost that battle.
So, at best figure that PSD and TIFF are equal but since TIFF is a documented file format and PSD isn't, I lean towards using tiffs whenever possible...because PSD files, suck-and have since Photoshop CS.
Even though I may have answered my own question, I'd still like to ask Jack whether his preference for exporting a layered TIFF from Lightroom to CS3 is based on the reasons Jeff Schewe offered, or whether there is perhaps another reason? Also, when you suggest saving an actual layered TIFF *or* PSD from CS3 back to the shoot folder, why would you choose one format rather than the other?
Apologies for reopening this dormant thread and for the long post, but I can't help thinking this may be of interest to other forum members too.
I use Aperture the same way as LJ
I have a large external disk, and I copy files from each card into an organised folder on that disk.
The disk is backed up to another disk using Time Machine - this means that the backup is done automatically within an hour of downloading the files. Good enough for me!
Just this guy you know
Thought this was all clear, but apparently not, sorry. The breakdown is probably due the different ways LR and Bridge/ACR work, plus the fact that my main camera (M8) uses DNG as its raw format so I tend to refer to any native raw file as a DNG -- my bad.
So for the record, I don't "Export from Lightroom as a layered tiff" but rather export a 16-bit tiff, process it in CS3, usually generating layers, then save it back to the original shoot folder as a 16-bit layered tiff working file, with a name that identifies it as such. Once it's stored back in the shoot file as a layered working tiff, LR can browse it and Bridge/ACR or C1 can open it directly into CS3 without having to "import" it back to a library first...
As a matter of practice I do not use LR's library function, so more routinely use Bridge/ACR or C1 as my raw converters of choice. I do use LR for some batch processing functions as I find it more convenient at present than other options, but this will probably change when we get C1 4 Pro. I have from the beginning created my own image file structure that saves shoots by date and job name, so I can find any historical image I need without requiring LR's keyword search function. (And no way I am going to spend the time to keyword my historical images -- I'm too lazy!) I realize others really like this feature in LR, but I do not feel any great need it for my purposes.
When I say leave the processed DNG in the LR library, all I am referring to is that's the only place I worry about keeping the LR data-tagged raw files when I use LR, which is rarely. I have a small partition on a drive dedicated to my LR library for when it's needed. By my definition a "processed LR file" is just the native raw file with the data tag for the LR adjustments in the LR library.
Bridge/ACR and C1 handles these similarly, but do not need a library location specified -- and hence does not require an "import" to a library -- to store the data tag for the raw adjustments. They just store them automatically in whichever folder the raw file was processed out of. In the end, I don't mind having the dedicated C1 sidecar files inside every image folder I have, moreover I actually prefer it for my personal image database structure.
One last note on PSD versus layered TIFF. I generally do save my files as a layered tiff simply because that's the format I process in. However, on occasion I will save a layered PSD instead, often because I forget or am too lazy to set tiff in the CS save-as dialog. So at the end of the day, I save and work with a layered tiff or PSD interchangeably and don't worry too much about the technical differences. I know this isn't a proper working methodology from a consistency standpoint, but as I get older I worry less about this type of process and focus more on the end result
Hope that clarifies,
By lightroom library do you mean the Lightroom database cum preview cache?
When I use lightroom, I keep my files in their original format in their original location, which is an arcane personally comprehensible file structure, and just go from there.
One feature I like of "lightroom as an image browser" is that it centralizes all of its cruft and can purge previews as they get old. The behavior of C1 which is to deposit its spoor wherever it has been is driving my backup tools bananas. Every directory that I browse looks like it has been touched!
What I WISH I could do is to be able to use C1 as an alternative external editor from lightroom so that I could use it as a preferred raw converter for raw tiffs that are browsed via lightroom, opening the original file. Unfortunately it seems that C1 4.4.1 does not use a file path as a command line argument, so that when it gets invoked, the specific file information is lost. This, however, seems to work using C1-DB 3.7.9
Many thanks, Jack. That was exactly the clarification I was seeking.
Yes, when I do use LR I leave my files in their original location and "import" them from there. The term "Import" is an unfortunate moniker in LR for their library, since it does have the option to leave them where you already have them, but still calls it an "Import." However to do that, you do need a dedicated "LR library" location, and that's what I referred to when I said above I had a small partition on a drive dedicated to my LR library.
I still prefer the C1 method of data tags to LR's insistence on a dedicated library location --- this may be the one single thing you and I actually have a difference of opinion on!
I do think Jeff had an issue with others at Adobe on this and actually lost that battle, hence his rather opinionated commentary on it at almost every opportunity. One would think he'd be happy he got his way most of the time
The reality is that while layered tiff is an industry standard, not all tiff readers can read the layers. When this happens they often only read the top layer, so if it is an adjustment layer it ends up displaying nothing...